NMAY vs. QMAR

Last updated Jun 6, 2026

NMAY (Innovator Growth-100 Power Buffer ETF - May) and QMAR (FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March) are both exchange-traded funds - NMAY is a Defined Outcome fund tracking the Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1, while QMAR is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by First Trust. NMAY is passively managed, while QMAR is actively managed. Over the past year, NMAY returned 13.02% vs 21.87% for QMAR. Their correlation of 0.83 suggests significant overlap in exposure. NMAY charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for QMAR.

Performance

NMAY vs. QMAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator Growth-100 Power Buffer ETF - May (NMAY) and FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, NMAY achieves a 4.51% return, which is significantly lower than QMAR's 11.34% return.

NMAY

• 1D: -1.76%
• 1M: 0.36%
• YTD: 4.51%
• 6M: 5.13%
• 1Y: 13.02%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

QMAR

• 1D: -1.50%
• 1M: 0.28%
• YTD: 11.34%
• 6M: 12.13%
• 1Y: 21.87%
• 3Y*: 16.08%
• 5Y*: 11.78%
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

NMAY vs. QMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
NMAY Innovator Growth-100 Power Buffer ETF - May	4.51%	12.48%
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	11.34%	15.35%

Correlation

The correlation between NMAY and QMAR is 0.83, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.83
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 2, 2025	0.83

The correlation between NMAY and QMAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.83 to 0.83 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

NMAY vs. QMAR — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

NMAY

NMAY Risk / Return Rank: 91
NMAY Sharpe Ratio Rank: 86
NMAY Sortino Ratio Rank: 88
NMAY Omega Ratio Rank: 92
NMAY Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
NMAY Martin Ratio Rank: 96

QMAR

QMAR Risk / Return Rank: 96
QMAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 94
QMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 96
QMAR Omega Ratio Rank: 97
QMAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
QMAR Martin Ratio Rank: 97

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

NMAY vs. QMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator Growth-100 Power Buffer ETF - May (NMAY) and FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

	NMAY	QMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.68	3.51	-0.83
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.78	5.28	-1.51
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.58	1.84	-0.26
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	6.75	6.84	-0.09
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	34.97	47.96	-12.99
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

NMAY vs. QMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NMAY Sharpe Ratio is 2.68, which is comparable to the QMAR Sharpe Ratio of 3.51. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NMAY and QMAR, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	NMAY	QMAR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.68	3.51	-0.83
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.85	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	3.00	0.88	+2.12

Drawdowns

NMAY vs. QMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NMAY drawdown since its inception was -1.94%, smaller than the maximum QMAR drawdown of -19.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NMAY and QMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	NMAY	QMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-1.94%	-19.83%	+17.89%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.94%	-3.21%	+1.27%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-15.91%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-19.83%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.94%	-1.70%	-0.24%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.20%	-3.28%	+3.08%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.37%	0.46%	-0.09%

Volatility

NMAY vs. QMAR - Volatility Comparison

Innovator Growth-100 Power Buffer ETF - May (NMAY) has a higher volatility of 2.34% compared to FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR) at 1.95%. This indicates that NMAY's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than QMAR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	NMAY	QMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.34%	1.95%	+0.39%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	3.81%	5.11%	-1.30%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.89%	6.28%	-1.39%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	5.33%	13.98%	-8.65%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	5.33%	13.86%	-8.53%

NMAY vs. QMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

NMAY has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is lower than QMAR's 0.90% expense ratio.

Dividends

NMAY vs. QMAR - Dividend Comparison

Neither NMAY nor QMAR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NMAY and QMAR in my portfolio?

NMAY and QMAR have a correlation of 0.83, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, NMAY or QMAR?

NMAY has higher volatility (2.34%) compared to QMAR (1.95%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NMAY dropped -1.94% vs QMAR's -19.83%.

Which ETF is better, NMAY or QMAR?

On 1-year performance, QMAR leads with 21.87% vs 13.02% for NMAY. On fees, NMAY is cheaper at 0.79% per year. On volatility, QMAR has been the lower-risk option at 1.95%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, NMAY or QMAR?

Over the 1-year period, QMAR has performed better with a 21.87% return vs 13.02%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, NMAY or QMAR?

NMAY is cheaper with a 0.79% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for QMAR.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, NMAY or QMAR?

NMAY and QMAR have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between NMAY and QMAR?

NMAY is categorized as Defined Outcome, while QMAR is Nasdaq-100. They also come from different issuers: Innovator and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for NMAY and 0.90% for QMAR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.51 vs 2.68), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.